> From: "Jon Skeet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > 1) Do people think this would actually be > > helpful? I suspect that a lot of the time > > it would be trivial stuff - stuff where > > the method name isn't *quite* clear enough, > > but 10 seconds of looking at the code makes > > it obvious what's intended. > > -1 to change the name of a non-private method > that has been released. -1 to change name of > methods unless we have a really really good > reason. It will be too much pain just for > aesthetics. If the method name appears not > upto the mark, please consider improving > the documentation so that the real intent of > the method is exposed.
Sorry - I probably wasn't clear enough. I wasn't going to start changing *any* code, although I might suggest some changes. It's a case of adding *documentation* to the code. > > Is it worth spending that extra time (not > > Adding documentation wherever it is lacking > appears worthwhile to me. However, changing > method names does not ;-( Absolutely. > > 2) Which version should I do this on? If I > > attack the current CVS main tree, a lot of > > the work in Ant2 will be missed - but if I > > attack the proposal tree, I suspect a lot > > of things are prone to change there anyway. > > Please go against the main trunk. Righto. > > Any thoughts welcome. > > Take a look at BugZilla. There are a few > enhancement requests and bug reports that > have been out there for a long time, but > none have come up with the necessary patches > yet. Perhaps, you could spend your energy on > some of those? Yup, that sounds like a good idea too. I suspect that if they haven't been picked off yet, they'll need a fair amount of *concerted* effort rather than the piecemeal time I have on my hands, but you never know... Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
